Sola Liturgia? Will we see TLM Protestants?
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 185
    Just to play Devil's Advocate: Why is it so necessary to cling to the writings of a Pastoral Council, convened in the 1960s, which did not claim to be doctrinally binding, which was overly optimistic about the goodness of man and the inherent goodwill of the secular governments, whose documents read as being unbelievably outdated and irrelevant to the needs of Christians in the 21st century? No doctrine was ever solemnly defined by Vatican II, and yet it's naive ramblings are adhered to with such doctrinaire ultramontanism that would make Pio Nonno blush with embarrassment.


    2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

    The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

    It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.
    https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,686
    jclangfo, can you point to any actual theologians who think that the statements in DH are a solemn definition? Or even better, Church documents that so indicate?

    I really do think your opinion about this is not in the mainstream.
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 185
    jclangfo, can you point to any actual theologians who think that the statements in DH are a solemn definition? Or even better, Church documents that so indicate?

    I really do think your opinion about this is not in the mainstream.


    Is there a difference between defined and solemly defined? Like, I don't think that DH is defining a dogma, but I think this a a doctrine to be authoritatively held.
    Thanked by 1toddevoss
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    I believe Religious freedom was condemned by previous Popes... is this true?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,686
    Is there a difference between defined and solemly defined? Like, I don't think that DH is defining a dogma, but I think this a a doctrine to be authoritatively held.


    Can you find some expert assessment about that?

    The Church uses the expression "to be definitively held" with regard to some doctrines, such as the doctrine in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. This is for doctrines that are not themselves dogmas (i.e., not directly revealed by God), but are closely related to them, and necessary for the right understanding of dogmas.

    But DH isn't in that neighborhood.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen dad29
  • MarkB
    Posts: 670
    I think this is TLM Protestantism:
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/07/a-rorate-cli-editorial-attack-of-hatred.html

    "The Attack of Hatred and Vengeance Against the Latin Mass Should be Ignored"

    What ought traditional Catholics to do in response to the latest attack on the Mass and all those who love tradition? Simply put: ignore it. Ignore its message. Ignore its motivation caused by pure hatred and vengeance. Keep calm and keep on going as if it does not even exist.

    Priests: Carry on. Do not change a thing with respect to the traditional Latin Masses you are offering, except to offer more of them.


    And so on...
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    So there you have it... two popes (still living) say something diametrically opposed to each other about the very center of the Faith... The Mass itself... is that the sign of unity PF hopes to achieve? This is truly an ominous day in the history of the world and the Church.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • MarkB
    Posts: 670
    The TLM is not all of a sudden entirely forbidden; but it is being officially phased out.

    It's not considered harmful; just not the normative liturgy of the Roman Church after Vatican II.

    We can preserve the riches of the faith handed down to us by celebrating the Novus Ordo worthily. That's where future efforts need to be directed.

    The more I read comments from people who oppose this motu proprio, the more I am convinced that Pope Francis got it right.
    Thanked by 1jclangfo
  • Mark,

    We can preserve the riches of the faith handed down to us by celebrating the Novus Ordo worthily.


    We could preserve them, also, by making more widely available the place where they already reside.
    Thanked by 2CCooze ServiamScores
  • TCJ
    Posts: 774
    The TLM will continue to grow. The NO will die out. The typical parish that celebrates only the NO might as well be converted into an old people's home.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,791
    We can preserve the riches of the faith handed down to us by celebrating the Novus Ordo worthily.

    That I cannot argue with. But I am frightened. I think that with the motu proprio combined with the various new regulations in St. Peter's, and the new prefect of the CDW, we are just beginning to see the destruction. I am not a prophet, but I will say that things will get worse.

    I have been working in an exclusively Novus Ordo parish for over 15 years, working under two pastors in what, broadly speaking, could be called "reform of the reform". The "new guy", to be honest, didn't "get it" until he learned to say the Tridentine Mass, his ars celebrandi has been improving, as has his preaching, (please pray for him, he has been tapped to become the diocesan exorcist), and he has found the TLM very important to his priesthood: he has said that certain bits in the Novus Ordo which didn't make sense suddenly did once he learned the TLM. He was visibly shaken today, and at a couple points almost seemed on the verge of tears as I was meeting with him & the office manager to discuss some banal parochial stuff.

    These are the people whom I worry about because of this new Moto Proprio: the Vorises of the world and other insufferable twits I couldn't care less about: they can all take a flying leap.

    And, as good as some aspects of the Reformed Liturgy are, I will maintain to my dying day that the most beautiful sound I have ever heard, the most eloquent sermon ever preached, is the silent Canon.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 670
    We could preserve them, also, by making more widely available the place where they already reside.


    Chris, but that is not what the Council fathers at Vatican II decreed should be done. The Council fathers didn't have to decide to reform the liturgy, but they did. Vatican II having decreed in favor of liturgical reform, the path forward for the Roman Church is not through the unreformed liturgy, it is through the reformed liturgy.
    Thanked by 1jclangfo
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,686
    .... each and every Catholic, as also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion, must retain his own rite wherever he is, must cherish it and observe it to the best of his ability....

    --Vatican Council II
  • Mark,

    I'm not going to get into a text-slinging contest with you. What we ended up with and what the clear text of the Council said were.... not the same. You can sensibly argue that the Supreme Pontiff directed something, but you can't blame Vatican II for decreeing the non-sense.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,159
    It's not considered harmful

    That's exactly what this motu proprio has suggested.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 670
    No, the letter accompanying the motu proprio stated that despite intentions to foster greater Church unity in granting permission celebrate the TLM, the result has been a hardening of divisions in the Church that have nothing to do with the TLM itself, but rather because too many TLM Catholics have misused the permissions generously given to them to segregate themselves in enclaves hostile to the Novus Ordo and hostile to Vatican II:

    An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.

    But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”.

    From the letter accompanying the motu proprio: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html

    The motu proprio itself simply legislates that the TLM is to be phased out because the Novus Ordo Mass is the normative liturgy of the Roman Church. It does not say the TLM is harmful. It says the TLM is no longer normative in the post-Vatican II Church.
    Thanked by 1OraLabora
  • MarkB
    Posts: 670
    I'm not going to get into a text-slinging contest with you. What we ended up with and what the clear text of the Council said were.... not the same. You can sensibly argue that the Supreme Pontiff directed something, but you can't blame Vatican II for decreeing the non-sense.


    You'd lose that contest, because Vatican II decreed that the liturgy was to be reformed. Period.

    The Council did not decree a specific form for the reformed liturgy; it offered guidelines and general norms for the revision. The work of developing the particular revised rites was to be done after the Council and approved by the pope. The reformed liturgy could have been different than it is, could have been more like the TLM, could have been even less like it. But what we have currently in the Novus Ordo Missae accords with what was decreed by Vatican II to be done and was promulgated by papal authority.

    Vatican II did not decree nonsense. It decreed liturgical reform. You seem unwilling to accept the decree of the Council to reform the liturgy. If that's indeed your area of disagreement, then simply say so. You wish Vatican II hadn't decreed that the liturgy be reformed, right?

    Yet it did. That's the reality of the post-Conciliar Church.
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 191
    It would seem, observing today's discussions, that Mark is certainly in the minority on this forum in approving wholesale of these changes, which is immensely reassuring to me. To be honest, it is surprising to encounter this sentiment here instead of at PrayTell.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    That's the reality of the post-Conciliar Church.
    If the NO is the reality of the post-Conciliar Church (in your mind and heart and the mind and heart of many), then what is the reality of the TLM? The OLDER church? The TRADITIONAL Church? A DIFFERENT church? A SEPARATE church? A church that no longer exists, or should not exist? Maybe even... cancelled?
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,217
    Like it or not, I am sure that no one here has the power to do much about it. Since I didn't go to the TLM I haven't personally lost anything. But I do have friends who are deeply hurt by all this. I keep them in mind.
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 185
    Summary of some of the above posts:
    1. How dare Pope Francis take away the TLM based on false accusations of us rejecting Vatican II
    2. We reject Vatican II
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    Summary of some of the above posts:
    1. We do not reject Vatican II
    2. However, WE are rejected.
  • CatholicZ09
    Posts: 118
    I guess what we could do, now, in the words of Sr. Delores Dufner: “Sing a New Church.”
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 924
    The Council did not decree a specific form for the reformed liturgy; it offered guidelines and general norms for the revision.


    Fair enough. But what happened wasn’t a “revision” of something preexistent. It was a fabrication of something new that only broadly resembled the old.

    TLM with more vocal participation and vernacular readings is a revision. The NO is something totally different with its own collects, lectionary cycle, etc. Etc.

    Worse still, the sorts of revisions they suggested were NOT what we got. We got something else entirely, which undermines the legitimacy of the so-called “revision”. When’s the last time you heard a run-of-the-mill NO parish sing a full Latin ordinary and credo? Have you ever seen the NO in Latin completely apart from some of the responses and the readings? There’s a reason we call Cantius a “unicorn”. What they do there (something much closer to what the council actually asked for) and what everyone else does everywhere else are almost irreconcilable.

    Why do people absolutely refuse to recognize the reality of the situation as plain as the nose on their faces?
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 924
    To continue my thought:

    To say, “the council asked for reform” and then, “therefore the novus ordo is a positive development” results in a non sequitur. The latter is the result of the former, but it cannot be justified by it.
  • Mark,

    The nonsense which is so much of the ethos of the Ordo of Paul VI isn't in the text of the Council.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,217
    I think the council did call for reform then left that reform in the worst possible hands. The council members went home and didn't follow up on what they had called for since the council never came back in session.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,691
    Who knows, with a less good organizer than Bugnini we might have got a worse mess. ServiamScores - yes I have been to an OF entirely in Latin apart from the readings, a regular Sunday 5:30pm in Westminster Cathedral. It withered and died, but they still have an OF advertised in Latin on weekday mornings (which was sung on Saturdays), how much Latin I do not know. And they are not the only place in central London, there are several that do a Sunday Mass.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 924
    Sad that it takes a metropolitan cathedral to do what is supposedly supposed to be de rigeur world wide.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,145
    @ServiamScores

    Well Westminster was deliberately set up to be a centre of excellence in Liturgy. Fortunately the Philistines have so far failed to destroy this completely.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Maybe do some things in a NO mass differently:
    (This requires a free-standing altar of four sides)

    - Everything through and including the Universal Prayer be done facing the people, “behind” the altar.
    - From the offertory through and including Communion be done ad orientem, standing “in front” of the altar. The celebrant says the Canon/Eucharistic Prayer in a low voice but is lightly miked so as to be modestly audible to the congregation. I favor an audible consecration, especially considering some of the excellent prose used in the Eucharistic Prayers (I especially like the infrequently-used EP 4).
    - from the Prayer After Communion to the final hymn all is done facing the people again, except maybe the Celebrant might wish to turn, ad orientem, bow and recite silently the prayer to the Trinity that is found at the end of the TLM (oh oh; mix and match isn’t allowed)

    This can be done in Latin or any other language, provided the readings are done in whatever language the Pope decrees. Use chant from the Graduale Romanum as possible. Use excellent music. Don’t let a “cantor” scream into a hot mike. (Thomas Day is my hero.)

    (My model for Mass “best practice” is that of the skilled liturgists of the FSSP, primarily at St. John Cantius because of their YouTube presence. They cover all the bases and do so with excellence and majesty, with all the particulars in place, and with good music, too, most of it Chant. And they have an orchestra for the Big Days. Pretty cool.)

    Just a few things that came to mind while reading so much in this and other TC-inspired topics.

    I’m a retired church music director and organist who has played for most Protestant denominations, Reform Jews, Byzantine Melkites (the one in Brooklyn used an organ when I played there as a young man; I am half Lebanese and was baptized eons ago in the Melkite Rite) and Roman Catholics. I was constantly bemused by the petty hatreds I observed in western Christian churches and was occasionally the target of, and astonished at how the gift of excellent music and my expertise in the same was at one place welcomed and at another actively abused making me run for the door, once secretly, at night.

    One subtext I sense, without much other than a lifetime of considering peoples’ motivations, is that Francis has a lot of enemies in the Curia and this is one weapon to address some of their opposition, knowing it will make most of them scream even louder. … or retire … or just ignore him, alas.
    Thanked by 1MarkB
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 191
    The Canons Regular of St. John Cantius are their own thing, and are not members of the FSSP. They are a great example of how the N.O. ought to look though. I much prefer the beginnings of the Mass to be said and sung from the chair (like they do at Cantius) as opposed to standing behind the altar facing the people. Standing there twiddling your thumbs through a long Kyrie or Gloria is awkward when facing the people head-on.
    Thanked by 1Rivegauche610
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    A War on the Brink of the Abyss

    https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/international-news/traditionis-custodes-a-war-on-the-brink-of-the-abyss/

    On the level of law, the revocation of the individual priest’s free exercise of celebrating according to the liturgical books from before the reform of Paul VI is clearly an illegitimate act. In fact, Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum reiterated that the traditional rite has never been abrogated and that every priest has the full right to celebrate it anywhere in the world. Traditionis custodes interprets that right as a privilege, which, as such, is withdrawn by the Supreme Legislator. This modus procedendi, however, is completely arbitrary, because the lawfulness of the traditional Mass does not arise from a privilege, but from the recognition of a subjective right of the individual faithful, whether lay, clerical, or religious. In fact, Benedict XVI never “granted” anything, but only recognized the right to use the 1962 Missal, “never abrogated,” and to enjoy it spiritually.

    The principle that Summorum Pontificum recognizes is the immutability of the bull Quo primum of St. Pius V of July 14 1570. As noted by an eminent canonist, Abbé Raymond Dulac (Le droit de la Messe romaine, Courrier de Rome, 2018), Pius V himself did not introduce anything new, but restored an ancient liturgy, granting every priest the privilege of celebrating it in perpetuity. No pope has the right to abrogate or change a rite that dates back to the Apostolic Tradition and has been formed over the centuries, such as the so-called Mass of St. Pius V, as the great liturgist Msgr. Klaus Gamber confirms in the volume that, in the French edition, bears a preface by Cardinal Ratzinger (La Réforme liturgique en question, Editions Sainte-Madeleine, 1992).

    In this sense, the motu proprio Traditionis custodes can be considered a more serious act than the exhortation Amoris laetitia. Not only does the motu proprio have canonical applications of which the post-synodal exhortation is devoid, but while Amoris laetitia seems to grant access to the Eucharist to those who have no right, Traditionis custodes deprives of the spiritual good of the perennial Mass those who have a right to this inalienable good and need it in order to persevere in the faith.

    Also evident is the ideological framework of considering a priori as sectarian the groups of faithful attached to the liturgical tradition of the Church. They are spoken of as if they were subversives who must be placed under observation without criteria of judgment (cf. nos. 1, 5, and 6), their right of association is limited and the bishop is barred from approving others, limiting the proper right of the ordinary (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 321, §2). Groups of the faithful, in fact, have so far arisen spontaneously and have become representatives of certain requests with the legitimate authorities, but they have never been “authorized.” Considering authorization as necessary for the birth of a group constitutes a serious vulnus to the freedom of association of the faithful that Vatican II itself advocated, just as for that matter there is a violation of the Council in the provision that turns bishops into mere executors of the papal will.

    Traditionis custodes confirms Pope Francis’s process of the centralization of power, in contradiction with his constant references to “synodality” in the Church. By the book it is “exclusively” up to the bishop to regulate the Extraordinary Form in his diocese, but in fact the motu proprio (cf. art. 4) limits the bishop’s discretion and autonomy where it decrees that his authorization for the celebration of the Mass requested by a diocesan priest is not enough, but a placet from the Apostolic See must in any case be requested. This means that the bishop cannot grant that authorization (which is never defined as a faculty and therefore seems to be more than anything else a privilege) autonomously, but his decision must still be examined by the “superiors.” As Father Raymond de Souza observes, “more permissive regulations are forbidden; more restrictive ones are encouraged.” (https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/pope-francis-traditionis-custodes). 

    The goal is clear: to eliminate over time the presence of the traditional rite in order to impose the Novus Ordo of Paul VI as the only rite of the Church. Reaching this goal requires a patient re-education of the unruly. Therefore, as in the letter to the bishops states, “indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration (the ancient Roman Rite – Ed.) and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II (the new Roman Rite or Novus Ordo Missae – Ed.), and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the ‘holy People of God’.”

    Tim Stanley is not wrong when, in the Spectator of July 17, he defines this as a “merciless war against the Old Rite.”   Benedict XVI, with Summorum Pontificum, publicly acknowledged the existence of an immutable lex orandi of the Church that no pope can ever abrogate. Francis, on the other hand, manifests his rejection of the traditional lex orandi and, implicitly, of the lex credendi that the ancient Rite expresses. The peace that Benedict XVI’s motu proprio had tried to ensure in the Church is ended, and Joseph Ratzinger, eight years after his resignation from the pontificate, is condemned to witness the war that his successor has unleashed, as in the epilogue of a tragedy Greek. 

    The struggle is taking place on the brink of the abyss of schism. Pope Francis wants to hurl his critics down there, pushing them to establish, in fact if not in principle, a “true Church” opposed to him, but he himself risks sinking into the abyss if he insists on opposing the Church of the Council to that of Tradition. The motu proprio Traditionis custodes is a step in this direction. How is it possible not to notice the malice and hypocrisy of one who intends to destroy Tradition while calling himself “guardian of Tradition?” And how can one fail to observe that this is happening precisely at a time when heresies and errors of all kinds are devastating the Church?
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,791
    The problem with looking at Benedictines, or Cantius, or Brompton, etc., etc., and saying "See, it CAN be done!" is that they don't represent parochial reality. They are religious, and therefore have a permanence that diocesan clergy do not; they are self-selecting in that these priests and brothers decided to be there, they weren't simply appointed arbitrarily by a presbyteral council; they are further self-selecting in that they choose their own leaders, again, with rare exceptions---usually as a disciplinary measure---they elect their superiors from among their own ranks, they are not appointed by the Bishop.

    In diocesan parishes, they clergy are appointed to a parish for a six-year term, with the option to renew for a second six-year term, knowing the whole time that they can be transferred even during their term.

    The past few years at my place were challenging: Our former pastor of over 30 years retired---he was the one who established RotR. The "new guy", while good and pious, was the product of poor formation: he let the music continue as it had been, but his ars celebrandi was sloppy, and his style was of the casual, make the Mass fun type, he didn't "get it"...UNTIL he discovered and learned the TLM. Now he "gets it" and his ars celebrandi and style are improving. Unfortunately, he's already been here for four years, which means that unless he decides to ask for a renewal, he will be gone in two years, and then who knows what will happen.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    Yesterday during the celebration of the Mass I had a picture, like a huge painting appear in my minds eye similar to those we have seen where the barque of Peter is being tossed on the waves. Except in this version, the entire corpus of the Church was celebrating the Mass on the deck of the ship. However, a small group was standing on the right side and watching over the edge of the ship as PF was setting off in a tiny life raft with three or four others in the boat.

    Just minutes ago I read this crystalized explanation:

    The struggle is taking place on the brink of the abyss of schism. Pope Francis wants to hurl his critics down there, pushing them to establish, in fact if not in principle, a “true Church” opposed to him, but he himself risks sinking into the abyss if he insists on opposing the Church of the Council to that of Tradition. The motu proprio Traditionis custodes is a step in this direction. How is it possible not to notice the malice and hypocrisy of one who intends to destroy Tradition while calling himself “guardian of Tradition?” And how can one fail to observe that this is happening precisely at a time when heresies and errors of all kinds are devastating the Church?

  • OraLabora
    Posts: 208
    The problem with looking at Benedictines, or Cantius, or Brompton, etc., etc., and saying "See, it CAN be done!" is that they don't represent parochial reality. They are religious, and therefore have a permanence that diocesan clergy do not; they are self-selecting in that these priests and brothers decided to be there,


    That's also the case though with the EF isn't it? The clergy celebrating it are doing so because they want to and out of love/interest/desire for that form, they are also self-selecting. So they don't really represent parochial reality either.

    As I've said before I don't think "sloppy" is a result of the form of the Mass, it is the result of attitude, and plenty of pre-Council Masses were sloppy as well. It is to deny human nature to suggest that would not be the case if the old Mass was to be made normative again.

    Ora
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,145
    @OraLabora
    That is interesting your statement could also be written,
    the case though with the N.O. isn't it? The clergy celebrating it are doing so because they don't want to and Not out of love/interest/desire for that form, they are also self-selecting. So they really represent parochial reality that has serious problems.

    This would imply that with the current state of the Church, the RoftR Pius an impossible dream for most places, and the decline will continue until only good priests are left?
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,791
    Your missing the point. What Cantius, et al. do is NOT in any way INTRINSIC to the Novus Ordo, it is simply one valid option among many. RotR is simply a preference, which means that RotR doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding other's preferences: P&W and Graduale Romanum are legally on equal footing.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 191
    This is precisely the point I was trying to make in the RotR thread, Salieri. You are absolutely correct.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Salieri
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,217
    The council did call for liturgical reform and it was needed. Unfortunately, the people put in charge of that reform did not do a very good job. One could, without reputing the council, pick up with the requested reform and do a better job of it this time around.
    It will never happen, I'm afraid, because too many have way too much invested in things remaining as they are.

    Thanked by 2trentonjconn Salieri
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 191
    Give us the '65! If you say it totally in Latin, it is basically the '62. In its base form, it still requires a bit of Latin, but can be largely in the vernacular. I see it as the perfect via media, with enough in it to satisfy both trads and moderates, while directly addressing the requests of SC. However, I'm sure that those who are very attached to the N.O. would find the '65 to be unacceptably traditional.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW a_f_hawkins
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    And those celebrating the 1962 would find it unacceptably modern. Maybe pre-55 would be the purer untouched form.

    If I may ask, what basic particulars is it in the 1962 that many cannot accept?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,217
    The 1962 was itself a revision. The 1965 put much of the liturgy in the vernacular and kept the canon in Latin. The level of "revision" in both was relatively minor. Neither possessed the calendar rewrite that came later.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 191
    Francis, what is unacceptably modern about it?

    I am glad to accept the '62, I'm merely suggesting that stopping at the '65 reform-wise would (I think) have resulted in far less division in the long run.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,217
    Nothing wrong with the 1965. I saw nothing in it that needed any further re-writes. It wasn't hand-written by monks wielding quill pens, to which I am sure the purists will object. I thought it was pretty good.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,542
    Well, the 62 and beyond lost the critical Holy week texts, so the pre 55 versions I think truly put forward the longstanding practices.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,217
    Those Holy Week texts were questionable to start with after Pius XII rewrote them.
    Thanked by 2Salieri tomjaw
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,073
    the result has been a hardening of divisions in the Church that have nothing to do with the TLM itself, but rather because too many TLM Catholics have misused the permissions generously given to them to segregate themselves in enclaves hostile to the Novus Ordo and hostile to Vatican II


    Everybody has an opinion.

    What we see in the US is very rapid growth of attendance at EF Masses, whether parochial- or Order-based and a fairly serious decline in attendance at OF Masses. Further, the worshipers at EF Masses are--by and large--younger than those at the OF Masses.

    One suspects that the Italian Bishops--who were the primary pushers behind Francis' orders--saw exactly the same thing. (I'm not surprised, having been tortured by an Italian-import "church musician" who was a very good hotel-lobby pianist but in all other regards, including choir direction, was abysmal. )

    Isn't it curious that Francis & Co. have NOT released the numbers and cross-tabs on that "survey" they conducted worldwide which apparently justifies this move?

    Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CHGiffen
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,159
    Well, Cardinal Burke specifically said that if Francis is claiming to base this decision off of the (minimally responsive) survey, then he should publish it. I completely agree.

    At the very least, it would give various dioceses an idea of how sharp of an axe is about to be used against them...
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,791
    Those monks with their quills are part of the reason why Trent requested a revision of the Missal: to purge those errors which crept in over time, and to issue an editio typica, that can be used 'universally' thanks to the modern miracle of the printing press and moveable type.